Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development Hell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (clear consensus, NAC). American Eagle (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development hell

No hope of expanding beyond a dicdef, despite the sources. Also, if deleted, get List of films in development hell and List of development hell projects as related articles. The lists are actually pretty prone to OR themselves. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think insider-slang is necessarily unencyclopedic (Software bloat, Cruft, MOS (filmmaking), Barn doors, Greenfield project). The two list entries are not great, I think they've better candidates for deletion. Maybe merge a few of the most representative stories into the main article. The lists also focus on productions currently in production hell, which is a pretty vague concept (when is it still in hell, and when is it dead?)... and so misses some interesting stories, like Terry Gilliam's, whose career has been plagued by development hell and otherwise unfinished films. Hairhorn (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more than a dicdef. There's so many news sources discussing the concept, here's just a few:[1][2][3][4][5]. Also a term in IT development:[6]. Plenty of scope for using examples to illustrate why it happens, which projects escaped and how, notable cases that never made it out. The lists both look well-sourced and notable; I don't see why you'd want to delete them, other than having an overly itchy trigger finger. Fences and windows (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if it were a dicdef, that's not a reason to delete the related lists. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the nominator that the lists are susceptible to original research, but I can see considerable scope for the original article to be expanded. Arguably, it's already more than a dicdef. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per the sources above the term is widely used, and really this is already more than a dicdef. I agree that the lists, particularly the non-film one, are of uneven quality as far as sourcing, but that can be fixed. Incidentally, the article's long existed at Development hell, complete with (fairly old) AfD closed as keep, but appears to have been the subject of a recent cut-and-paste move to the current title. No opinion on the title, but the cut-and-paste move should be fixed at least. BryanG (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for pointing it out. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and wikify more with links to other film articles--Moloch09 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if the lists are prone to OR, the article itself can be kept free of OR by sticking firmly to acceptable sources. In terms of notability, this term may have started as insider-jargon but is now easily known by people who read film or computer game magazines. Kaid100 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable beyone a definition, and certainly has some good potential. It's really more of a cencept than just a term, IMO. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.